Schmitt v. State (Majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 66 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CR-12-324 Opinion Delivered LAWRENCE SCHMITT APPELLANT January 22, 2014 APPEAL FROM THE BENTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CR-10-0783-1] V. HONORABLE ROBIN F. GREEN, JUDGE STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge In April 2011, appellant Lawrence Schmitt pleaded guilty to twenty counts of possession of child pornography, a Class C felony. On September 8, 2011, he was sentenced in a separate proceeding before a jury to four years imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of $1000 on each count, with each sentence to run consecutively, for a total of eighty years imprisonment and fines of $20,000. Pursuant to Anders v. California1 and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(k), Schmitt s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw on the grounds that an appeal would be wholly without merit. We affirm and grant counsel s motion to withdraw. 1 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 66 This is the third time this case has been before us.2 In our first opinion, we noted that counsel had failed to identify, abstract, and discuss the circuit court s denial of a defense motion for no prison sentence and a nominal fee. The directed-verdict motion was abstracted following remand; however, counsel failed to abstract the renewal of the motion and the court s denial. Additionally, the jury-verdict form for Count 1 was not included in the record or the addendum. Therefore, we remanded to supplement the record and for rebriefing. An attorney s request to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is wholly without merit must be accompanied by a brief that contains a list of all rulings adverse to appellant and an explanation as to why each ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal.3 This court is bound to perform a full examination of the proceedings as a whole to decide if an appeal would be wholly frivolous.4 Our supreme court has held that the failure to abstract and discuss any adverse ruling in an Anders brief necessitates rebriefing.5 Here, based on our review of the record for potential error pursuant to Anders and the requirements of Rule 4-3(k), we hold that an appeal of appellant s sentence would be entirely without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the sentence and grant counsel s motion to withdraw. 2 See Schmitt v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 20, and Schmitt v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 489. 3 Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(k)(1) (2012). 4 Campbell v. State, 74 Ark. App. 277, 47 S.W.3d 915 (2001). 5 Sartin v. State, 2010 Ark. 16, 362 S.W.3d 877. 2 Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 66 Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted. GLADWIN, C.J., and WOOD, J., agree. Herbert C. Southern, for appellant. No response. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
